Well what were you expecting from Joel Schumacher?
I just saw "Phone Booth". The very very last shot has nothing to do with the actor that we were watching non stop for an hour and a half, and frankly, I thought it was about the dumbest ending shot to a movie I have ever seen.
And, it kind of made me have a much more negative view of the film.
Well what were you expecting from Joel Schumacher?
Have you seen the shot! I thought I was watching an intel commercial. Maybe it was a family member's foray into computer graphics.
It seemed like such a stupid ending I wonder if the director approved the shot.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">-----------------------------Originally posted by reved:
How unexpected! Alex starts another never-ending 'debate' thread...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">---------------Originally posted by Justin M.:
I'm sure I read (somewhere) something along the lines of:
Start well, end better.
Are you having problems or issues with an ending, Alex?
Hey Justin, I hope your comment which followed Reved's comment was not influenced by Reved. Reved trolls this topic and I think some of you just accepted the trolls "take".
Guys(& Gals too if there are any:-)),
The structure of the short length and feature movies has to different on account of the time available.
Short films can focus only on one character and a very simple problem-solution plot.
Feature length films can focus more on Charater building, complex plots, Catalyst characters and great endings...
That's an interesting point. A short film usually does focus on one character, whereas a feature may focus more on a problem that may or may not focus on only one character.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 25, 2004 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
feature: 3 acts
shorts: 1 act
Speaking of acts, if you know how to pick them out you can usually tell if the film will have a happy or sad ending. The first act used to end with the "inciting incident" (which which sets the overall desire of the protaganist in the film), but people today have such short attention spans sometimes the incident happens so soon there isn't much of first act at all.
But by the end of the second act, which should end in really good incident, a really bad incident or a twist, you should know the end. If the end of the second act is sad, the ending will be happy, but if the second act ends happily, the ending is sad.
Wow, i just re-read that and it doesn't make any sense. oops. [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]
A short film should also have 3 acts very much like the full length feature.
ACT I
Define the main character. Put him infront of a problem.
ACT II
Make him struggle with the problem, till he is almost beaten.
Towards the end of this act trigger him so that he fights back again. This time with all he has.
ACT III
Either the character looses or wins.
You main character can be a human or animal or inanimate. Like he could be a guy in love or a dog whoose owner has left him on the streets or a local liquor shop.
His porblem could have a good or a bad effect on him. Like the guy could get good with the girl or be a psycho and start hurting the girl and her friends.
The end can then depend on what you want to show.
Generally at the end of the act, give some trigger to move on to the next phase.
But for short movies the most imp thing is to keep the problem small.
Like
1) Guy want to get on with a girl, who does not show interest in him.
2) Street Dog does not get the food he wants one night.
3) The liquor store has a hip pub opening in front of it, so it looses business.
For full length features, the problems could be complex and lead to other problems.
or you can just have a lot of squirting blood.
(I learned that from this forum)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks